[r-t] Changes to decisions again

[Graham John]

Ben wrote:

> This is part of the problem.  Everyone has different view of where
> "change-ringing as we know it" ends, and thus everyone has different
> views of what the CC should permit.

Indeed. What about peals on chimes, buckets, computers? Should the Council
recognise these?

>> Using 1250 changes instead of 5000 would cover what the majority
>> accept as valid quarterpeals too.

> Do you have any particular authority to be speaking for 'the majority'
[regarding what quarterpealers accept]?

My point here was that the majority of quarterpealers accept partial extents
to achieve a shorter length, although there may be some that believe you
should ring a 1440 of Minor. If the peal decisions are changed to accept
partial extents, then the decisions could equally be applied to
quarterpeals. For peals it resolves the issue for a band wanting to ring
over 40320 of Major and the case of the Doubles band which rang 5100 for an
anniversary, which later had to be specially recognised as a peal by the CC.
The suggestion of a slight reduction in length for lower stages makes the
rules consistent and could spark off some interesting compositional ideas to
make use of the new found freedom, whilst traditionalists could continue to
ring 5040s.   

>> ... peal of Spliced Double Cambridge Cyclic and DNCB Major
>> which this decision prevents.

> Incorrect.  The current decision doesn't prevent it [a peal of
> Spliced Double Cambridge Cyclic and DNCB Major], as long as the
> splicing is only at the lead-end.

Sorry - I omitted "half-lead" before Spliced.

Graham